Roles of Historical Archaeology in the Interpretation of our Historic       Past, Part IV

    by John Nass, Jr., Editor, President of Mon Yough Chapter 3

 Ground Truth based Reconstruction

     The ultimate purpose of this usage of archaeologically based reconstruction is the meticulous rebuilding of structures on the original footprint of the building using period building methods. The two outstanding examples of this usage are Fort Michilmackinac at the straights of Michigan and James Fort, the fortified settlement known as Jamestown in tidewater Virginia. 

     Fort Michilmackinac was built by the French in 1715 during its conflict with the Fox Nation in the western Great Lakes region. After the end of hostilities, the post became a central node in the network of French fort/trading posts in the Great Lakes region. The post was surrendered to the British at the end
of the French and Indian War who enlarged the fortification. The fort was captured and held by Native Americans during Pontiac's uprising in1763. The British assumed control of the fort after the conflict and retained ownership until the Revolutionary. War, the the fort was abandoned in favor of a new, more defendable fort on nearby Mackinac Island. 

  

     Excavation at the site occurred during the WPA era and led to the reconstruction of the British palisade line. Small interpretative structures were built to display artifacts found during the WPA investigation. As a young boy, my family would visit the fort each summer in the 1950s on our way across the straits on a lake ferry to St Ignace. 

     In the 1950s new excavations were sponsored by the state as a first step in the renovation of the WPS erected palisade and structures seen in this early postcard. Excavation reestablished the location of the palisade and identified the footprint of several structures (see postcard to left).

     The site reopened in the 1960s. Inside, the new reconstruction were the rebuilt soldiers barrack, the home of the commanding officer, and a French Church. Each of these structures was rebuilt on its original footprint. Extensive archival and architectural research were conducted to learn about 18th century British and French building traditions. The resulting structures are considered true to the period. 

     Since then, excavations at the fort have continued each summer. As work slowly progresses, additional structures are delineated and some of these have been rebuilt using the same detailed construction methods. Others, such as the power magazine, were exposed, stabilized, and then protected from the elements with a protective structure.  

     

  

Images inside of fort.

Aerial images of the fort

     Archaeology at 1607James Fort in Virginia has been nearly continuous since being discovered in 1994 by the Jamestown Discovery Team. Excavation disclosed that most of the 1607 fort still exists. This realization has proved to be a watershed for revealing the lives of the fort's inhabitants for the first decade of the colony's existence.   L

     Like Fort Michilmackinac, the palisade and rebuilt structures are located atop the footprints of the buildings. Extensive research was needed to insure the the structures were constructed as accurately as possible. Nothing is rebuilt until detailed plans have been developed. The structures rebuilt thus reflect the 17th century building tradition of the English colonists. 

Rebuilt bastion and portions of the stockade.

Several rebuilt dwellings within the fort. 

            

     The stories of Fort Michilmackinac and James Fort are still unfolding. 

     In summary, the purpose purpose of this discourse has been to draw attention to the purpose or goals of historical reconstruction. Is the goal an idealized version of what we think was the past, based on imperfect information, or should we instead accept archaeological evidence, or is ground truth.   

    Of course, historical reconstruction and/or the interpretation of historical sites can also be polarized through the intentional disregard for the facts as revealed by archaeology for an alternative narrative that cherry-picks what the public will experience.   

    Bruce Trigger expressed this point in an article (1984) in the journal of Man entitled “alternative archaeologies.” He identified what he believed were three different types of archaeology, each associated with a different historical social/political context. These were nationalist, colonialist, and imperialist. While we are still living within the colonialist- type paradigm, the nationalist and imperialist are the most concerning because each can be twisted or bent to service the agenda of the prevailing political climate.    

   And this point returns me to the theme of reconstruction and/or interpretation. I believe both must be negotiated, especially when archaeology does not uphold or support opinions about sites and events as envisioned by the sponsoring group. For this reason, I believe it is important for archaeology to not loose focus about the proper presentation of the past. If we fail to assume our responsibility, what we know to be factual will be brushed aside and replaced with a new narrative that will corrupt the story that we have worked for years to craft.